Sydney mother remains in jail after poisoning allegations
A magistrate has said it is unclear whether a young mother was being “calculated and manipulative” or was too unwell to know what she was doing when she allegedly poisoned her infant son earlier this year.
Liverpool
Don't miss out on the headlines from Liverpool. Followed categories will be added to My News.
A magistrate said it was unclear whether a young Sydney mother was being “calculated and manipulative” or too unwell to know what she was doing when she allegedly poisoned her son with prescription medication – including when he was in hospital.
The Lurnea woman will remain behind bars after she allegedly poisoned her infant son seven times with a prescription medication.
Police allege she gave her son Tegratol, an anticonvulsant medication usually used for seizures, on seven occasions despite the fact it was not prescribed to the boy at that time.
Court documents reveal the woman allegedly administered the medication to her son in Casula and Liverpool on January 10, 13 and 14 before giving it to him an additional four times while he was allegedly sick in hospital in Randwick.
Magistrate Peter Thompson said the woman posed an unacceptable risk to her child and members of the public if she was released from custody.
He formally refused bail when the woman appeared at Liverpool Local Court on Wednesday (June 13).
“There are allegations before the court that she provided this drug to the child – a drug that was known to cause harm to the child,” Magistrate Thompson said.
“Moreover they are related to continuing courses of conduct for a period of time from January 10 onwards where offences committed while the child was in care in hospital.
“The conduct is one of two things - either it is to some extent calculated and manipulative so as to avoid detection by hospital staff, or she is so affected by her mental condition that the conduct is without explanation.”
Magistrate Thompson said there was no explanation as to the state of the woman’s mind or mental condition when the offences were allegedly committed.
He also noted the woman had made some admissions in a second police interview regarding her alleged conduct.
The accused woman’s solicitor had argued she was not a risk to her child, the police informant or the public and was unlikely to flee interstate or overseas.
“An apprehended violence order was made on January 25, the child has been in the care of FACS since then and there have been no alleged breaches,” the solicitor said.
“The police have known (the woman’s) whereabouts since January this year and they have not raised any concerns.”
The solicitor also pointed out the woman’s lack of criminal history and suggested potential mental health concerns would be best dealt with if the woman was not in custody throughout the lengthy court process.
The woman smiled briefly at three women who attended court to support her and was mostly silent in the dock, where she fidgeted intermittently.
She will remain in custody until the matter is mentioned at Liverpool Local Court on June 26.
An apprehended violence order preventing the woman from seeing or contacting her son or the police informant will also be reviewed on the same date.
The Director of Public Prosecutions will also decide whether the case will be heard at Liverpool Local Court or in the District Court.